Email: please send pdf of case with script and cards to dvsnd1190@gmail.com

Treat me like a flow judge leaning more towards flay, I will be flowing every single speech asides from cross and will give the win to the team with the cleanest path to the ballot. Extensions as well as frontlines are key for me as a judge, you must extend your frontlines in second summary or else you risk dropping them and letting the other team extend and gaining access to their attacks. Attacks as well as cards are only as good as you can utilize them you need to make sure that you properly implicate what you are saying or risk me not properly flowing it. Don't make me jump through hurdles to try to find your impact or link chain. Easiest way to secure my ballot is solid impact and link weighing. I will not evaluate what is not properly extended in the next speech including weighing. I have the most experience judging public forum debate.

TLDR:

Tech > Truth, flow judge who isn't that experienced with prog arguments but will evaluate theory, try to keep spreading to a minimum or risk me not flowing arguments most comfortable around 200 WPM mark please try to not go above 250 WPM.

I will evaluate prog arguments asides from Ks as I don't not know how to evaluate them. I will however consider theory even the goofy arguments as long as they are properly explained and warranted out. If you are running theory make sure you send me your shell. Also tell me before round so I know to get ready to flow it.

Debate should be a good time the best way to secure high speaks is treating it that way, meaning respecting each other in cross its never that serious, saying a joke or two and just seeming like you are enjoying your self is solid way to get high speaks. you will most likely get good speaks unless you are really rude to your opponents. General lay strategies also work for good speaks but not to win the ballot

Impact calculus probably makes judging easier. Even if you’re losing an argument but you can prove why the ones you are winning are more important I will vote for you. These usually sound like “Even if you buy their arguments on economic policy, our climate change argument is more important because.......”

Email: anar.s.anand@gmail.com - feel free to add me to the threads

I am a parent judge and an alum of the Stuyvesant High School Speech and Debate Team in NYC. I have a few simple ground rules and requests.

Speech / IE

These are long rounds and I expect you to be alert and engaged throughout the round regardless of your speaker order. This is basic courtesy and you yourself will perform better when your audience is engaged so please extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors. I come with no pre-conceived notions about your topics or performances so your choice of topic or argument is not what I'm judging. My feedback will be based on delivery, presence, soundness of reasoning and how you develop your points/arguments/characters. Most importantly, enjoy yourself up there and have fun with it - if you're not comfortable, we'll know.

LD / PF

Be respectful of one another and of the platform you are given as a debater. If you ask a question in cross, allow the other person to actually respond. If you've already presented something in an argument, restate your point concisely rather than say you've already stated it earlier. These are skills you're building for life.

Debates are won by those who make good arguments, not those who have the loudest voice. Make strong arguments with supporting evidence, present your case with confidence, drill into your opponent's case with challenging questions.

I'm not a fan of spreading as I believe the mark of a good debater is to make strong arguments and get your point across clearly and concisely rather than try to pull a confundus charm on your opponent. While I won't deduct points if you do it, keep in mind I can't judge what I can't understand. It is your job to convince me why your arguments and presentation of them should win you the round.

Keep it simple, make it interesting, have fun with it!

Hi debaters!

I am a judge new to PF debate. I am looking to see clear, logical arguments and respectful attitudes. You will not get my vote by talking over your opponents or providing excessive evidence. It's better to have a few quality arguments rather than many random ideas. Looking forward to seeing your cases.

Dear Debaters,

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and so I can understand what you are saying and why.

I will give full speaker points to all debaters who can do this.

I will ultimately vote for the team who can best use logic to support their case.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge. I have previously judged different speech & debate categories (but mostly Public Forum) in several tournaments.

• Debaters please share case before round begins; makes it easier to follow.
• Please speak clearly, not too fast and do not spread.
• I prefer civil and respectful debates and be courteous to your opponents and partners.
• I like clearly articulated arguments with well documented evidence.
• I value consistent arguments.
• Refute the logic aside from quantitative data.
• Signpost at the beginning of your speech.
• Arguments brought up last minute will not win you that round.
• Speakers should keep their own time.

I do not disclose unless required by tournament rules.

Good luck and most importantly have fun!

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

I have been judging PF since ~2021. I consider myself a flay judge. I prefer the delivery rate to be not overly fast, especially the initial speeches to help clearly understand the contentions. Weighing impacts clearly is a strong way to persuade my decision. All the best!

I am a parent Judge.

Judge: Prince Jose
Background: Over 3 years of experience in speech and debate.
Philosophy: Prioritizes clear, structured arguments with effective communication.
Delivery: Emphasizes good eye contact and gestures.
Content: Values structured content with evidence and support. Memorable phrases, content recaps.
Persuasion: Engage the audience, include thrilling stories and surprises.
Dislikes: Disrespectful behavior and over-reliance on notes.
Advice: Advocate with conviction. Be daring in your presentation approach.
Feedback Promise: Committed to offering insights that foster growth and enhance speaking abilities.

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

add both emails to the chain:

spjuinio@gmail.com

nuevadocs@gmail.com

if you would prefer to set up a speechdrop instead of an email chain, that works too! no matter the agreed-upon avenue for exchanging speech docs, it should be set up before the round starts. i do not like wasting time searching for evidence in the middle of a round. do not fear the exchange! there should be nothing for you to hide.

while on the topic of time, please try to have pre-flows done before the round. as you can tell, i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. there are many ways to win my ballot. ordinarily, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do not forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in your round helps me follow your speeches and ensures i get as much information down as possible. generally, judge instructions are helpful for everyone participating in the round. it is for that same reason that i highly encourage signposting. jargon is useful for clarifying the functions of your responses, but you should take some time to elaborate on the actual response you're making for an easier evaluation. without such elaboration and an overreliance on jargon, i might not fully understand or buy into your points. in addition to your storytelling and organization, you should extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

sometimes, students desire to read arguments that do not involve the usual narrative building in debate (e.g. tricks). these are quite controversial, but i have evaluated and voted on such arguments before. debate is a game, so play strategically. if you can persuade me to vote on it, i'll do it.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. you should aim to finish punctually. if you're mid-sentence after your allocated speech time has ended, you can finish your statement. however, i stop flowing after an additional 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round or competition. write down or type suggestions that you find useful (this might even help you practice flowing better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. let any decision, win or lose, motivate you to become a better debater. i truly want you to be! i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or if the next round is expedited to stay on schedule. if you want me to give you feedback and i was unable to, or you'd like further clarification on my comments, know that i accept emails and other online messages. i'll do my best to respond.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses, so read real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. voters should be terminalized (e.g. if fairness, education, etc is good, what does it look like? how have your opponent(s) killed fairness, education, etc?). tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. please don’t forget your alternative. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your points well and i might vote for you. i just find it difficult to grant offense to an argument with no advocacy). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i read every piece of evidence in the back half, so don't be lazy. evidence only counts when extended properly. otherwise, your "evidence" flows as analysis. make sure to identify cards correctly and elaborate on their significance. tell me why your cards are so great. ultimately, your evidence should enhance your narrative coherence. parli debaters need not worry about my typical stance on evidence because parli is a non-evidentiary format.

public forum debaters should practice complementary partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking some prep time before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments mentioned in the final focus need to be brought up in summary for me to evaluate them. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on arguments you are genuinely winning. additionally, i tend not to evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. the exception is when i am specifically told to vote on analysis and given reasons why i should do so. this is a rare occurrence. typically, reading zero evidence leads me to presume neg because i cannot test the truth of your claims. i am not asking that you regurgitate what your cards state verbatim or reread every piece of evidence from constructive, but you should read at least one carded link and impact. i’ll consider any analytics if they logically correspond to your evidence. i look to the link debate to determine whether you access your impacts, so extend your arguments well! winning the link debate means you are winning your impacts. on the impact level, please weigh, meta-weigh, and terminalize! knowing exactly what i am voting for helps me vote for you confidently.

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

I'm a new judge to Public Forum, so please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a parent judge and relatively new to PF.
- Please state your names before you give your speech (this helps me write clearer ballets)

- Speak clearly at a slower pace.

- I will only use the information that you present during the debate in decision making and do not count arguments made in cross fire so please bring it up in your next speech as well if you want to to be evaluated.

- Pl. be respectful to your opponents and be confident.

- Most importantly have fun!

Email: brianylee2003@yahoo.com.

I have no debate experience, but treat me like a flay judge. If it’s PF, assume I know the topic. I have no strong political leanings—maybe slightly libertarian. My main view on PF debate is that it’s an educational activity, so I’m against anything that discourages real learning.

Evidence & Credibility

• Tech isn’t truth. If you argue "the sky is green," I won't buy it. But I’m open to reasonable interpretations (e.g., a mix of colors) especially if uncontested. In varsity rounds, I am open to extinction impacts, but the warranting has to be solid.

• Credibility matters. Dodge and spin if you must, but don’t outright lie. If you act in bad faith, you will lose.
• Likeability is a huge part of your credibility. Act with dignity and treat each other with civility. Arrogance will not be tolerated. Desperate debaters sometimes resort to bullying, trying to establish the facade of perceptual dominance. It won't work with me.

• Too often, debaters throw out claims with little to no warrant. Don't assume that I will fill in the blanks for you. Also, remember that cards and warrants are not the same. I need explanations.

• A common tactic I see is debaters cramming as many contentions as possible into four minutes, hoping to overwhelm opponents—and maybe even the judge. If you take this approach, your arguments will likely be skeletal, lacking the depth, explanation, and evidence needed to actually persuade me at a prima facie level. Do so at your own risk.

• I reward research. If you back up your case with solid evidence, you’re in good shape. Especially in elims, I may call for cards that impact my decision.

• Paraphrasing is completely valid in PF, and I find the opposition to it elitist and misguided. If you disagree, I’m open to debate.

• If you’re citing a research study, especially in social science, as key evidence for a proposition that is counter-intuitive, you'll need to explain it and defend it in detail. I am skeptical of many social science studies, especially those that are rarely cited, if ever, have major design flaws, and/or used atrocious statistical analyses.

• As a corollary of the above, I've seen too many incidents of debaters misquoting research study, either out of context or quoting what the model predicts rather than what the data shows. I would rather you accurately paraphrase a study in context than piece together a "quote" out of context or outright misrepresent its findings. You'll lose credibility very quickly if you do that.

• Powertag at your own risk.

Spreading & Speaker Scores

• Keep it under 220 WPM. If your 4-minute speech exceeds 880 words, trim it. Unfortunately, debate is the only competitive activity where mumbling to confuse your opponent is often rewarded—but I won’t do it. Spreading is anti-educational and has ZERO value in real life unless you work for an auction house. Don't do it.

• Jargon isn’t a flex. I may understand it, but I don't like it. In my experience, excessive use of jargons is typically a sign of pseudo-intellectualism. PF debate should be about explaining complex ideas in a way that is accessible to the general public. Using jargon over clear explanation will hurt your score.

• Cross: Perceptual dominance is real. Be polite but assertive and stand your ground. I pay attention during cross, so this is an opportunity for you to earn your speaker score. Passivity, speaking over your opponent, or lying about evidence will cost you.

Constructive & Cross-Ex

• I want good, well-supported arguments, not speculations. Too many debaters cite cards that say “something could happen” with no real warrant. That’s not analysis—I won’t weigh it.

• Cross-ex is crucial. Many judges ignore it—I don’t. This is where you clarify, attack, defend, and dominate. If you get a concession, I will take note of it, but also bring it up in speech to make sure I hear it. Strong cross can win speaker points—and even the round.

Rebuttal, Summary & Final Focus

• In rebuttal, quality > quantity. Don't just speed read your block file for 4 minutes, expecting that I understand what it is you’re saying. I probably don’t, and I bet you don't either.

• In summary tell me what are the clashes. Clarity wins rounds. Collapsing is smart. In final focus, tell me: What matters? Why do you win? Why do your impacts outweigh?

• Close calls? I tend to default to NEG, since it represents the status quo.

Weird stuff

• Since I am a parent/flay judge, I don't expect anyone to run theory/K/progressive arguments in front of me. For the daring few that might consider it, don’t do it. To me these tactics are just pseudo-intellectual gimmicks designed to confuse less experienced or less resourced debaters. I find them pretentious, anti-educational and against the spirit of PF debate. Also, it’s funny when obviously privileged debaters read anti-cap K using their expensive laptop that capitalism produces, while wearing designer clothes, and generally benefiting from the system they criticize.

Good luck!

I am a novice parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly; this will help me better understand your arguments. Also, please be polite to your opponents.

My vote belongs to the speaker who builds a bridge of logic and reasoning, leading me across it to their point of view. Show me the data, paint a vivid picture, and leave me convinced that your vision is the one worth pursuing.

I am lay judge. my vote goes to the speaker who can melt my defenses like butter on a hot pan. But if you're spitting out words like popcorn kernels in a microwave, I'll be reaching for the extinguisher, not the ballot :)

Before speaking, please send me your case evidence and rebuttal speech to reduce time needed for evidence exchange during the round: R40135@gmail.com

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. Refer to specifics below

New stuff: In all honesty, I do not like the state of PF debate in the last 2 years. Evidence ethics, spreading weak incomplete arguments, and people using K and theory wrong. It has driven me to become increasingly less willing to be Tabula Rasa. Education is the priority and in my experience the truer argument usually wins.

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a long time since I judged one so I would be too rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it. Very rusty right now.

Speed Do not spread. Speed is generally fine. (PF less than 900 words for a 4 min speech) I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Hello!

I have been judging PF this past year. I am knowledgeable in Public Forum Debate and Lincoln Douglas. As far as speaking preferences go, please try to keep it relatively slow, and don't spread. Make arguments clear to me and if you want me to believe something you say, explain why I should, don't just state I should believe your point. NO THEORIES OR Ks!! I will not be flowing cross-examination, but I will be paying attention and writing down key arguments, so please keep that in mind. Please time your own speeches, and keep yourself accountable.

If you have any questions on my speaking or judging preferences, feel free to ask in round.

The most important thing is that debaters stay respectful and have fun.

I am a parent volunteer judge for Dougherty Valley High School. I have some wifi issues so please send documents with all your arguments and evidence. My email is: gangwu@gmail.com

I have no experience with judging and I do not know anything about the different events.

I will award speaker points to the debaters based on how courteous, well-spoken, and confident you are. Do not be rude to your opponents or anyone else in the debate, or else you will definitely lose points. Try to avoid jargon and speak slowly so that I can understand your points.

Try to outline exactly why I should be voting for you. I want to know what your main points are and why they are more important than your opponents.

I will try to note down the important points, but I will not carefully follow every part of the debate.

Try to use as much evidence as you need to get your point across, but I want to hear your reasoning as well. Do not only use evidence.

Make the impacts of your arguments clear. I want to understand how your arguments will affect the world around us.

I prefer aggression in cross-examination, but be polite.

I value the quality of your persuasion over the truth behind your arguments, but that does not mean that you can make anything up. As long as the reasoning is logical enough, then I will consider your argument.

Most importantly, I want to see you have fun in the round.

Miles Morton

Policy/LD:

Speed is fine

Not a fan of non-t critical affs

Don't love Ks either

I enjoy t debates

PF:

Speed is fine, but it's mostly up to your opponents. If they say "clear" or "speed" or something you should slow down.

Please just flash cases, if you don't I'm going to be annoyed if you call for like a half-dozen cards.

I'll evaluate most arguments barring anything offensive or insensitive.

Disclosing boosts speaks

Flashing cases probably means perfect speaks

If you flash cases or disclose and your opponents don't theory is super viable and a voter imo.

Be nice.

Weigh... That's what the decision is based on, don't focus on the line-by-line in FF, instead explain why your impacts matter more than the other teams.

Parli: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not feel obligated to fill time if you're a beginner or just don't have 7 or 8 minutes worth of argumentation. I would much rather you give a 4-minute rebuttal than an 8-minute rebuttal where half of the speech is you just repeating the same things over and over again. Speed is cool so long as your opponents are fine with it. Any arguments will be evaluated unless they're discriminatory

Let me know if you have any questions

email for chain: milesmorton2@gmail.com

Have fun!

Hi everyone,

I’m a lay judge and I’ve been judging debate for a couple of years. I’m familiar with the format of PF and its rules. Here’s the basics of what I want to see during a round:

Speaks:

Please do not spread! I cannot stress this enough. I’m taking off speaks for anyone who spreads. Like I said, I’m a lay judge, so the clearer you are, the better.

Ethics:

Just be respectful to one another. If someone is being racist or sexist, it’s an automatic win for the other team and I’ll will be forced to report.

How to win:

Tech>truth

As mentioned above, be respectful and talk clearly so I can understand. Cover both sides well. I tend to vote off weighing, so make sure it is explained well! If your opponents drop a point or a response, say that in your speech so I can make note of it.

Timing:

I’ll be timing your speeches, but you should also be timing yourselves. I allow for a 15-second grace period, and if you go over that I won’t hesitate to interrupt and cut you off. If your opponent goes over the 15 seconds, you can cut them off as well, I won’t take off speaks.

CX:

I don’t mind if you’re talking over each other, but don’t say anything inappropriate. I don’t flow cross or pay close attention to it, but do what you need to get your point across (I won’t judge based on cross).

Debate terminology:

Again, I’m a lay judge, so I’m not too familiar with debate terminology. If there’s anything you think I won’t understand, feel free to call it out and explain it to me.

FF2:

If we’re in the second final focus and your opponent brings up new evidence, just tell me right after the round and I’ll take it into consideration when I’m writing my RFD.

RFD:

I’m not going to give my RFD immediately after the round ends, I will need time to decide and give feedback.

Lastly, have fun guys! I’m looking forward to judging everyone. Good luck!

I am a parent judge; my student is a policy & public forum debater as well as speechie.

I have only judged speech and a bit of public forum debate before, so for LD and CX, please speak slowly and clearly, and make sure you explain your logic thoroughly to me.

I need good logic, reasoning, and warrants to buy an argument. Back up your claims with good links. And BE SURE to explain the bigger picture as I am not too familiar with the topic.

Good luck and have fun!

I'm a parent judge who has mostly judged debate rounds for the past year.

Before the round starts, please share your cases with me through email. (powercorp011@gmail.com)

I look for the following qualities in speakers:

• Confidence (both in body language and speech)
• Eye contact while speaking
• Respectful demeanor toward opponents
• Abidance to NSDA rules

Specifically for debate (PF), I expect the following criteria from speakers:

• Refutes that attack logic, not just quantitative data
• Signposting at the beginning of each speech
• Weighing (especially in summary and final focus)
• Speakers keep their own time

I prefer speakers to speak at a medium pace, making it easier for both the opponents as well as myself to understand the content of their speeches.

I look forward to judging you and good luck!

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

I am a fellow parent and has a very little experience judging PF and speech tournaments. Expecatations are very less to speaking clearly and slowly , explaining key points or terms as understandable to common audiences . Stating your sides politely . Good contentions and tactful rebuttals are a value add .

Expecting a good decorum among debaters!

Radha Ravi

English teacher and former journalist - Analysis & English is my passion

I was a communications and broadcast journalism major, and communications is key for me.

Debate & speech judge for the past 4 years. Debate teacher lead at public school.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Read carefully! Pay heed!

1.SPEED: No. If I cannot understand you, you automatically get points deducted, which might lead to a loss.

2.EVIDENCE:

a. As a journalist evidence is key for me. Just spouting sentences without evidence is a no-no. You can paraphrase which is preferred and you need clear source credentials. Whichever team gets me the best source credentials gets the points.

b. Honesty in presenting your evidence matters. Fact Vs fiction. Fiction is a no no. The team that is honest and has done the actual research will be rewarded.

3. READ OFF THE PAPER: Read but don't completely read off the paper. Try to make eye contact. Eye contact happens automatically if you know what you are saying and your passion for what you are speaking comes through.

4. CROSS EXAMINATION: Cross ex is something I give importance to. For me, this is the backbone of debate. So I will closely assess how robust your probe is into your opponents' statements; and how you bounce back when your opponent finds a weak spot in your presentation.

5. FINAL SPEECH: Has to clearly state why you would like to be picked as the winner. Make your conclusion strong.

6. LANGUAGE: Language is important duh! :) Correct usage of words, be it simple or at a high level, will be assessed. If you give me too much jargon that goes over my head and puts me to sleep, you automatically get points deducted. Clarity is key.

ALL THE BEST!

I am a parent judge. I am engineer by training and profession. This is my first year judging but I am an avid follower of debates. I do my research on topics and as a human I do form views, but I will NOT use it to judge the debaters.

My Focus:

• Be respectful and have a healthy debate.
• Have a clear flow to arguments, present evidence and be concise.
• Clarity and ability to understand arguments without being the loudest voice.
• Special focus on crossfire and rebuttals.

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 5 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

I am a parent judge for Public Forum. Despite my lack of judging experience, I would say that I am a lay judge with plenty of real world experience. This means that I vote for teams that are able to clearly persuade me with their evidence and impacts.

WHAT I LOOK FOR:

- I appreciate clear, structured communication.

- I prefer teams that are able to tell me why they are winning on their case and their opponent's case.

- Please weigh correctly: There is a higher probability of me voting for you if you make the explicit comparative between your and your opponent's impacts and evidence. Please flesh out your weighing instead of just using buzzwords.

- Roadmaps/Signposting is very helpful. This means that I appreciate debaters that tell me what they are talking about in their speech and where they are during their speech.

GENERAL INFO:

- I am OK with any speaking speed but prefer teams that have every piece of analysis mean something and contribute to the round than a team that only speaks fast.

- I don't time your speeches, so feel free to time your own and your opponent's speech.

- Please be respectful of your opponents & don't rudely interrupt them. (Otherwise I will dock your speaker points).

All the very best & have fun!

Hi,

I am Arundhati, a Parent Judge. This is a good learning experience for me. More rounds I judge more I learn about PF debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow.

Simple , clear arguments and rebuttal helps me to make a decision.

All the best for your round!

thank you!

I am very new to judging. English isn’t my first language so I prefer if you guys would talk at a slower pace and use less debate jargon for me to understand.
Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

This is the first year that I’ve judged. Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

Extensions/General Preferences: A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended". However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with shallow extensions. The vast majority of teams seem to have issues mechanizing and thoroughly explaining each step of their link-chains. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If both teams are technically proficient, the team that wins will often be the one that can resolve clashes with more thorough and deeper warranting.

Weighing: I despise when teams read a laundry list of weighing buzzwords like "scope, magnitude, probability" without any nuanced argument comparison. Additionally, if you say "Our probability is 100% because it's happening right now" I will roll my eyes. You derive impacts from the probability of preventing the harm or creating the benefit not from the probability of the harm occurring.

-Speed: Go as fast as you want - I have not needed to clear anyone but I will if necessary.

-Theory: I have voted for theory several times this year but I have yet to see a good round with theory in it. Take that how you will.

-K: I majored in philosophy in college so I will be able to follow the material/literature but slow down/thoroughly explain the implications. I would be more than happy to judge a good K round but I will be very sad if you botch a philosopher I like. Unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former so I would recommend being cautious about running a K in front of me unless you are dope at it.

-Tricks: Haven't judged it yet but I am mildly fascinated by the prospect.

-Use CX to resolve clash - I'm not flowing but cross can still be incredibly productive if used correctly

Parli:

Competed briefly in HS parli and extensively in college (APDA). Open to all kinds of arguments, but see above regarding my perspective on prog args. I am less familiar with Parli norms so connecting prog arguments to Parli may require more connecting and implicating.

All the best to all the contestants. Having been a judge for more than 3 years now, I look for good eye contact, clear and concise arguments, respectful behavior and clear speaking. Confidence is the key, not aggression.

Email : subrantap@yahoo.com

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

I am a new judge. I look for substance over flare. It is more important to make a strong and clear argument than to provide a incoherent set of evidence and arguments.

Although I want you to be able to present your arguments in your natural voice and style, there’s something to be said about speaking clearly.

I walk in the round with an open mind. I am a clean canvas that is ready to accept your thoughts and opinions to paint the picture.

I'm a high school varsity PF debater.

Treat me like I'm a lay judge - please explain things thoroughly, speak clearly, don't spread, and avoid prog args. I will vote off of what I flow, and I can only flow what I understand. Signposting is a must or I likely won't be able to flow your speech. Note that I will not flow crossfire, so if there is something you would like me to pay attention to, please address it in your speech.

Things I like: good clash, comparative weighing, collapsing in the second half of the round. Respond to all turns!

Make sure you extend your argument through all speeches in the round. I will not vote for arguments brought up in Final Focus that were not in Summary.

Regarding evidence: I take evidence ethics seriously. Add me to the email chain and I'll check the ev myself if you call your opponents out in speech.

Please time yourself.

Lastly, please be respectful! No hate or discrimination of any kind will be tolerated. Have fun and enjoy the round!

DVHS Parent for Speech

Hello debaters,

My name is Nima and I'm a parent judge. This is my first time judging a tournament and I'm not too familiar with debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could speak at a regular pace and really enunciate your words. It will be hard for me to understand your arguments if you spread them very quickly, so it would be a preference of mine if you could kindly refrain from spreading them too fast so I can judge your arguments fairly. Please be kind and respectful towards each other during the round as I will be taking that into account when putting in your speaker points. All in all, I am so excited to be judging this tournament and I look forward to judging your round!

When sharing evidence, please include me in the email chain: nyamdelger2002@yahoo.com

Thank you

Sincerely,

Nima T.

I am a parent judge, here are what I expect from all participants:

Don't speak too fast

Deliver coherent and consistent story with consideration of depth, breath, and impact.

Emphasize points clearly with variable tone and (reasonable) body language.

Be polite and respectable

Finally, have fun and enjoy the process.

I am a parent judge and new to debate tournament. Kindly please speak clearly and not too fast. Logic and consistency give your more chance to win the ballot. Enjoy the tournament!

Hi! No need to worry about how to call me. I'm Jonathan .

• No JD experience as of 10/12/24.
• prefer clear and slower speaking speed .
• be a good debater. don't be rude or your speaks will bash you later
• have fun!